TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (1) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period the goods were detained rendering the 1st respondent liable to pay demurrage to the Bombay Port Trust. 2. The 1st respondent, an Indian national, resident abroad (INRA) was doing business at Hongkong in the name and style of 'UNISILK' and the 2nd respondent was doing business at Delhi in the name of 'ACQUARIUS' and was holding an Advance import Licence bearing No. P/L/3084211/C/XX/95/D/85 for import of Mulberry Raw Silk. Prior to importation of the goods covered by the four consignments in question, the 2nd respondent had imported three consignments against the said Advance Licence and had misused the same in violation of the teras pertaining to importation thereof. Between November 22,1985 and January 22, 1986, the four consignm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following submissions:- (i) that the title in the goods covered by the said four consignments had not passed to the 2nd respondent; (ii) that the 2nd respondent had no right to abandon the said goods; (iii) that whatever might have been the lapses of the 2nd respondent, the said goods could not be proceeded against to realise penalty from the 2nd respondent; (iv) that the said goods were not liable to confiscation under any provision of the Customs Act, 1962 or the Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 or Import (Control) Order, 1955 as they were imported against a licence which was valid at the time of shipment thereof; (v) that the 1st respondent had a right to re-export the said goods; and (vi) that the 1st respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....title to the said goods did not pass to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent had not become the owner thereof and as such, the said goods could not be proceeded against for lapses committed by the 2nd respondent. 7. Mr. Master, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, while putting reliance on Section 2(26) of the said Act, has submitted, that the said goods had vested in the 2nd respondent and that she having misused the facility of import of the said three earlier consignments and also having obtained an Advance Licence by practicing fraud, rendered herself liable to penalty under the said Act and one such penalty being of confiscation of the goods under Sec. 122 of the Said Act, the 1st respondent could proceed against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Mr. Master. A deeming provision has to be confined within strict limits. The said Clause 5(3)(ii) itself indicates that the 'deeming' is for the limited purpose of clearance through customs. Where the clearance through customs is not even attempted but abandoned, the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be a person in whom the property in the said goods had vested. 10. We have gone through the impugned Order. We concur with the findings and conclusion of the learned Judge when it is held that the title in the said goods had not passed to the 2nd respondent. In view of the fact that the title in the said goods had not passed to the 2nd respondent, the question of confiscation of the said goods which were exported by the 1st respondent, a fo....